View More View Less
  • 1 University of Utah
Full access

This paper considers some paradoxes that arise in connection with repetitive adverbials in English. We propose a simple syntactic structure of verbal predicates along the lines of Ramchand (2008) and show how the apparent paradoxes can be resolved with that structure and some straightforward assumptions. One observation is that repetitives behave differently with verbs taking affected subjects (like read) than with verbs taking non-affected subjects (like paint). Another observation is the fact that repetitives are not uniform in their behaviour with respect to resultatives. Once again, structural assumptions, specifically, distinct structural positions of the resultatives, account for this varied behaviour.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Barwise, Jon and Robin Cooper. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4. 159219.

  • Beavers, John . 2013. Aspectual classes and scales of change. Linguistics 51. 681706.

  • Borer, Hagit . 2005. In name only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Bruening, Benjamin. 2001. QR obeys superiority: Frozen scope and ACD. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 233273.

  • Heim, Irene and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Malden, MA & Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Hock, Hans Henrich. 1985. Transitivity as a gradient feature? Evidence from Indo-Aryan, especially Sanskrit and Hindi. In A. R. K. Zide, D. Magier and E. Schiller (eds.) Proceedings of the Conference on Participant Roles: South Asia and Adjacent Areas. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club. 247263.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Holsinger, Ed. 2007. Reagain: Structural decomposition and adverbial modification. Ms. University of Southern California.

  • Jäger, Gerhard and Reinhard Blutner. 2000. Against lexical decomposition in syntax. In A. Z. Wyner (ed.) Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference, IATL 7. Haifa: University of Haifa. 113137.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jäger, Gerhard and Reinhard Blutner. 2003. Competition and interpretation: The German adverb wieder (“again”). In E. Lang, C. Maienborn and C. Fabricius-Hansen (eds.) Modifying adjuncts. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 393416.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kaufmann, Ingrid and Dieter Wunderlich. 1998. Cross-linguistic patterns of resultatives. Düsseldorf: University of Düsseldorf.

  • Kayne, Richard. 1985. Principles of particle constructions. In J. Guéron (ed.) Grammatical representation. Dordrecht: Foris. 101140.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Keyser, Samuel Jay and Thomas Roeper. 1992. Re: The abstract clitic hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 89125.

  • Næss, Åshild. 2007. Prototypical transitivity. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Saksena, Anuradha. 1980. The affected agent. Language 56. 812826.

  • Saksena, Anuradha . 1982. Topics in the analysis of causatives with an account of Hindi paradigms. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Stechow, Arnim von. 1996. The different readings of wieder ‘again’: A structural account. Journal of Semantics 13. 87138.

  • Williams, Edwin. 2011. Regimes of derivation in syntax and morphology. London: Routledge.